Jux said:
Regardless of what she's leaving out about other stuff uncovered during the process, I feel she hit the nail on the head about both 4chans role in starting and perpetuating this thing, and the general attitude expressed towards women. You say you're baffled at the insistence that 4chan is manipulating anyone, except they have a history of doing just that. Endfathersday, bikini bridge, free bleeding? I'm baffled by the idea that people don't think 4chan could do something like this.
It's not "4chan can't do something like this". It's "4chan can't do something like this... in complete secrecy". Literally everything on the board is public and anonymous, all of the discussion is in the open and available to the public eye, so how do they manage all of that?
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, Quinn's conclusions regarding the chat segments she grabbed generally don't even match the chat she highlights to support them, which immediately pulls into question the legitimacy of her overall conclusion.
Further-furthermore, let's assume you're right and 4chan did orchestrate thezoepost and manufactured outrage in order to harass Quinn (despite the fact that Grayson and Quinn's relationship was confirmed by Totillo and no one personally involved has actually denied any of it), how does that in any way negate everything else that's come up since then? How is all of the evidence that's come up about cronyism, conflicts of interest, the complete lack of barrier between press and their subjects, cherry-picking stories to best fit their narrative, and all of the other stuff that's been dragged kicking and screaming into the light in any way negated by the whole thing being started because a handful of jackasses wanted to harass a woman over the internet? How does that actually work?
I linked the article in the first place because I thought it would articulate better how I personally felt. I don't need an article to justify my personal opinions on gamergate. You may not like my opinion, and you may disagree with em, but you haven't risen to actually showing that what I'm claiming is wrong.
Never said you did. You provided the article as your argument why gamergate's full of shit, I disagreed, provided my arguments for why I disagreed, and (and this part probably should have been more clear, but I'm tired) I asked for your rebuttal.
Sure, go play the game, and it becomes fairly obvious. Anders' character was extremely mutated from DA:A to DA2, enough so that his sexual orientation changed entirely, as was Isabella's, though to a significantly lesser extent given her smaller role in DA:O.
It may have been shoehorned in, but that wasn't what was detrimental to the game. It was that they did it without taking the time to give the game good writing.
So, again, it wasn't that they added inclusivity, it was that they didn't provide good writing.
Again, because I'm sensing you trying to lay a verbal trap of some kind, I have no goddamn issue with games becoming more inclusive or diverse or whatever. I don't particularly care what I'm playing or who I'm playing as, so long as it's interesting and fun.
That said, I still maintain that the writing was as poor as it was because they shoehorned in the inclusivity and didn't know how to handle it. They absolutely could have done it better and it would have been fine. There's nothing wrong with inclusivity and diversity in and of itself. What's wrong is that the team on DA2 didn't know how to handle it, but they did it anyway, and it created a shoddy product.
I'm not arguing hypotheticals here. They forced every character to be bisexual in the name of inclusivity when they couldn't handle it and the game was made worse as a result. That's it.
No, they aren't. People pushing for diversity/progessiveness/inclusivity have zero control over artists or devs. Devs may -decide- that changing something about the game is preferable to getting bad press, but again, no one is being forced. 'Save the boob plate' sounds like a whiney tirade about how unfair it is that consumers are telling him they don't like his designs, and instead of trying to understand the criticism, he doubles down on the 'Don't change teh arts!, all while displaying a complete lack of awareness (comparing Nariko to Kratos? Dude doesn't even understand the concept of the male power fantasy apparently if he's going to draw that kind of false comparison)
Except that's not what happened. It's basically the same thing that happened to TFYC, except Larian had an out in buckling to pressure. If they hadn't changed it, the game would have been run into the ground, regardless of its merit or lack thereof, purely on the assumption that it was sexist. It's censorship by committee.
Sorry, but no. There may be a certain point in parenting where it's preferable to teach kids to make up their own mind, such as after they've started to aquire critical thinking skills, but you don't reason with small children. Their minds simply don't work that way. You want your kid to learn empathy? Teach them to share.
Social contract boils down to the same thing. I may as well complain that people are forcing their views on me because it's illegal to murder, and I really really really want to get to murderin.
edit: This'll be my last post tonight, I need to get to sleep.
Not really, because murdering someone then takes away someone's ability to choose. See how that works? It's called the Law of Equal Liberty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty].
That's all I'll say on the matter though, cuz it's pretty clear we're always gonna disagree on that, and I gotta get to bed myself.
